Book Reviews : WILLIAM M. EVAN, Social Structure and Law: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990,270 pp
| Author | Michael E. De Grasse |
| Published date | 01 June 1993 |
| Date | 01 June 1993 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/096466399300200208 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
242
WILLIAM
M.
EVAN,
Social
Structure
and
Law:
Theoretical
and
Empirical
Perspectives
.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage
Publications,
1990,270
pp.
If
we
wish
to
know,
must
we
be
scientists?
How
do
we
go
about
knowing
scientifically
in
a
field
as
difficult
to
describe
or
define
as
sociology
of
law?
Did
Professor
Quine
have
it
right
when
he
said
(Quine, 1987):
But
prediction
is
always
the
bottom
line.
It
is
what
gives
science
its
empirical
content,
its
link
with
nature.
It
is
what
makes
the
difference
between
science,
however
high
flown
and
imaginative,
on
the
one
hand,
and
sheer
fancy
on
the
other.
Do
sociologists
of
law
know
what
to
do,
but
do
it
badly,
or
do
they
really
know
what
to
do?
Professor
Evan’s
book,
both
implicitly
and
explicitly,
deals
with
these
questions
in
an
intelligent
and
practical
way.
Social
Structure
and
Law
is
divided
into
four
parts,
some
chapters
in
each
part
having
been
published
elsewhere
as
long
ago
as
1959.
Professor
Evan
explores
theories
of
law
and
society
in
the
first
part,
focusing
on
the
effort
to
define
’sociology
of
law’
and
develop
a
macro
sociolegal
theory.
Part
II
addresses
the
four
components
of
the
social
structure
model
proposed
at
the
end
of
Part
I :
values,
norms,
roles
and
organizations.
In
Part
III,
Professor
Evan
considers
what
he
regards
as
the
’most
daunting
problem
of
the
social
structure
model’,
namely,
’interinstitutional
analysis
at
the
societal
level’
(p.
12).
Finally,
the
book
concludes
with
two
chapters
suggesting
a
systems
model
of
law
and
society
together
with
an
argument
’for
an
experimental
perspective
toward
law’
(p.
12).
The
book
suffers
from
problems
of
coherence
that
are
common
in
presenting
a
writer’s
work
collected
over
time,
that
purports
to
carry
forth
a
single
theme.
One
wonders
whether
the
chapters
making
up
the
book’s
empirical
midsection
are
effective
in
exemplifying
the
theoretical
issues
or
advancing
toward
their
resolution
in
as
direct
a
manner
as
those
issues
were
set
forth
in
Part
I.
It
seems
Professor
Evan
described
the
theoretical
problems
and
then
gathered
some
articles
from
the
past
that
showed
the
problems
in
various
ways,
but
were
not
written
to
advance
the
inquiry
purposely.
Indeed,
the
book
might
have
been
more
cogent
had
Parts
II
and
III
been
deleted.
Part
IV
follows
nicely
from
Part
I,
but
it
is
not
clear
that
Parts
II
and
III
contribute
to
this
progress.
In
the
preface,
Professor
Evan
modestly
describes
his
hope
of
clarifying
theoretical
and
methodological
problems
in
sociology
of
law.
Thus,
’my
model
can
be
viewed
as
a
prolegomenon
to
the
development
of
a
systems
theory
of
law’
(p.
12).
While
never
underestimating
the
magnitude
of
the
theoretical
problems
encountered
in
his
work,
he
refuses
to
be
immobilized
by
them.
Probably
he
is
aware
of
Professor
Hartog’s
fine
description
commenting
on
a
Trubek
and
Esser
article
(Trubeck
and
Esser, 1989)
found
in
the
references:
First
the
Amherstians
(notably
Sarat
and
Silbey)
write
repeated
methodological
essays
about
the
failure
of
sociolegal
research
to
produce
substantive
scholarship
that
challenges
dominant
perspectives.
Then
Trubek
and Esser
write
of
the
Amherstians’
failure
to
produce
’a
scholarly
article
that
explicitly
champions
a
specific
marginalized
group.’
Now
I
write
about
the
failure
of
Trubek
and
Esser
to
produce
a
substantive
paradigm.
How
long
can
this
go
on?
(Hartog, 1989)
Professor
Evan’s
book
stands
for
the
proposition
that
this
unpromising
circular
debate
can
be
transcended
through
his
social
systems
model
deployed
in
an
’experimenting
society’.
While
proposing
a
way
to
avoid
the
stultifying
effects
of
endless
debate
over
theoretical
To continue reading
Request your trial